phishtaper

who's gettin' all sentimental about him? or, was that preemptive? i sense he's not gonna get too much praise 'round these parts.

respectfully, i took it to mean that it can't contain the words in the song ... otherwise half of all songs written would qualify.

finally, some good news in the politics forum ... so, you think he'll come back as a lamp post or a rock?

over a fine sensi one evening, someone told me that global warming and gas shortages are a scam invented by the oil companies to hype all the new energy technologies that they also own. developed countries are "forced" to accept the new technologies (also in part because we can afford to) but under-developed countries and developing countries (like China) cannot afford new energies and thus have to continue to rely on oil and coal. in the end they will never catch up to our economic dominance because of their inefficiencies and they screw up their environments ta boot. so, both the oil (new energy) companies profit and western hegemony continues. of course, i could have heard it wrong. go Sens!

229 Songs with titles that have nothing to do with the lyrics themselves 1. The Who - Baba O'Reily 2. Bob Dylan - Rainy Day Women #12 and 35 3. Grateful Dead - Caution (Do Not Stop On Tracks) 4. Joy Division - The Sound Of Music 5. The Grateful Dead - New Potato Caboose 6. Nirvana - Smells Like Teen Spirit 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

i shocked that wolfy lied! i mean, the man who masterminded the invasion of iraq getting caught lieing! the horror! i like to believe in reincarnative karma and when wolfy passes on, he'll be turned into a lamp post in a dog park, or a rock at the bottom of the ganges river or something.

im tempted to joke that I drive a honkin' huge SUV, routinely run over small animals, and dont give a damn about the environment ... but I learned my lesson ... so .... go Sens!

"It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If 'is' means 'is and never has been' that's one thing - if it means 'there is none', that was a completely true statement," said President Clinton.

#225 the song you are listening to RIGHT NOW ... 1. Pretenders - Mystery Achievement 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

#224 Songs that mention a specific brand of beer 1. Drive-By Truckers - Tales Facing Up (Pabst Blue Ribbon) 2. moe. - Happy Hour (Saranac) 3. Ween - Booze Me Up And Get Me High (Beck's, Guiness) 4. Sheryl Crow - All I Wanna Do (Budweiser) 5. SCI - Miss Brown's Teahouse (Red Stripe) 6. Neil Young - This Note's for You (Miller, Bud) 7. George Thorogood & The Destroyers - I Drink Alone (Budweiser) 8. Jughead - Stumblin' Drunk (Labatt 50) 9. Damian Marley - Khaki Suit (Guiness) 10. Humble Pie- 30 days in the hole (Newcastle Brown) 11. Weezer - Say It Ain't So (heineken) 12. Kid Rock - You Never Met a Motherfvcker Quite Like Me (Pabst, of course)

ive been doing this for 20 minutes ... i dont get it ... should something appear?

The most comprehensive reference is Argenti, Paul (2004), Collaborating with Activists: How Starbucks Works with NGOs, California Management Review 47(1): 91-116. Maloni, Michael and Brown, Michael (2006), Corporate Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain: An Application of the Food Industry, Journal of Business Ethics 68: 35-52 also provides context. Unfortunately, I have access thru the university here, and Im not sure if public access is available. The Argenti article is particularly good, although critics will note that it was produced with the cooperation of the company itself (not at all uncommon practice in studies of this sort, as others can attest). Other, web based sources are: http://www.savethechildren.org/corporate/partners/starbucks.html http://www.unicef.org/wes/index_39184.html http://www.reason.com/news/show/33257.html http://www.transfairusa.org/content/Downloads/AnnualReport2005.pdf http://www.transfairusa.org/pdfs/fastfacts_coffee.pdf http://www.transfairusa.org/content/certification/licensees.php http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/underfire012605.cfm http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/StarbucksAndFairTrade.pdf http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/CAFEstatement.html http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/2562.html http://www.globalexchange.org/update/press/2223.html http://www.socialfunds.com/news/release.cgi/4525.html http://www.coffeeresearch.org/politics/Starbucks%20Fairtrade.htm http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/press_releases/press_release.2006-11-29.4085266785 http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/press_releases/Starbucks%20takes%20step%20towards%20recognizing%20Ethiopian%20rights%20to%20coffee%20names/?searchterm=starbucks http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0560210809.html I hope these links work, I simply copied them out of my url line. Some do cross-reference. Note that many of these web sources are both critical of Starbucks for not doing enough to support fair trade, but also acknowledge that it does considerably more than most. I'd also be interested in seeing reputable references for the other side of the argument. The best I can find are blog-type sites that just seem to be critical of its size, style and market dominance but provide little evidence. Of course, one can easily take a cynical view of all of this and say that Starbucks has simply begun supporting fair trade coffee because its in its financial and public relations interests to do so. This is undeniable. But, it is simply not the case that the company supports clear cutting, and exploitative labour practices in developing countries.

well, just so this goes no further ... i was being sarcastic. I assumed that was more than clear, but it appears I was wrong about that. in fact, i do not mean harm to children and i do not wish villages to be obliterated. and preemptively, I do not kill puppies for fun and I have never mugged anyone’s grandmother either. it troubles me that anyone could actually believe otherwise. but, oh well … on the charges leveled against starbucks: most are unfounded. the company is consistently included in many ethical investment funds because it contributes a significant proportion of its profits to local endeavors in developing countries (ie., water purification, child health, establishing grower co-ops) and was once again listed among the top 100 ethical companies in the world by Ethisphere this week. It is the single biggest purchaser in North America of internationally grown fair trade coffee beans, and is designated as a world leader by most fair trade organizations (although understandably, they call on Starbucks to continue to do more). It was Starbucks that brought fair trade coffee to the masses more than ten years ago. It provides health, and stock purchase, benefits to part-time and full-time employees (and some of my friends have benefited very well from this) and has explicit diversity policies in hiring and promoting. And it is recognized as a supporter by a number of NGOs like Oxfam, Save the Children and Unicef. while it is all too tempting to criticize the company for all sorts of things - probably because it is big, successful, ubiquitous, slick and expensive - the evidence simply does not support most of the claims made. The only two legitimate charges are that it practices predatory locationing, and often sets-up near existing, local owned cafés, and; that it has engaged in anti-union activities. On point one, Starbucks is nothing like Walmart in that it does not strategically locate stores near existing local stores and undercut their prices, driving them out of business. Far from it. Starbucks charges considerably more for coffee than most local Mom and Pop cafés. Clearly, however, customers are willing to pay more to buy its coffee. Mom and Pop cafés can still complete, and many do, but they need to adjust. The anti-union activities, however, are quite troubling. While still generally paid higher than others in similar positions, Starbucks employees want more and have been prevented from unionizing. As for the charge that Starbucks serves burnt coffee, well, that’s just a matter of subjective opinion and clearly, millions of people every day like the taste (and pay extra for it). so, yes, I was being completely sarcastic, and I do apologize if that was not understood by everyone here. But the bottom line is that most of the charges levels were unfounded. And as much as the anti-Starbucks movement would like people to believe that buying products there results in villageless, blistered children, that’s simple not true. Not true at all. Obviously, my sarcastic way of making that point was lost. My intention was to challenge unfounded charges, not to induce vomiting. ps, “3rd world†is a pejorative term that hasn’t been used in the international community for years. There are “developedâ€, “developing†and “under-developed†countries.

you're on heroin ?!!? for the record, im kidding, i dont really think you are on heroin, its a joke.

thanks everyone. here's the bit torrent link to that unique MMW I was talking about. D1 Set 1 1. improv 2. improv-> 3. New New Orleans 4. Cat Creeps 5. Tubby 6. Dracula 7. New Planet D2 Set 2 With DJ Logic 1. ? (tip of my toungue...i know this song - lol...kinda like hip chops but its not) 2. "new '07" 3. Back and Forth 4. What'd I Say? 5. What'd I Say? cont.. 6. Spy Kiss 7. After The Onsen 8. Sugarcraft (from wrightreyes on bt.etree)

PhD©... CONGRATS!!

Oh, I do. And I particularly enjoy knowing that my extravagant lifestyle directly contributes to the blisters on the fingers of poor, young, starving, soon-to-be-villageless children in developing countries that I dont give a damn about. hmmmm, ive visited ihatestarbucks.com too, and a lot of what's there is little more than hype. just thinking for myself.

what do you mean?

seems to be a lot of time spent at guinness sweet pics. thnx.

if u make and sell food to the public, you have to have a separate board of health certified kitchen, i think. i know that a lot of small food venders at the guelph farmers market were shut down a couple of years ago because they prepared food just in their home kitchens. something to look into perhaps. good luck

maybe im just too closed-minded but really, what's so "offensive" about simply saying think for yourself. and as for the pro-gay cup, well, if someone is offended by that today, then they are just plain stupid. the whole thing reminds me of that old joke about people in a burning building (or on a sinking ship or whatever) and how a fireman comes along and says, "come with me lady" and she says, "no, god will save me." and then another fireman comes along and says "hey lady, come with me" and again she says, "no, god will save me." and of course she burns to death and when she gets to heaven she asks god why he didnt save her and she says "honey, i sent two firemen, what more do you want?" like famous players a few years ago, with their pre-film, pro-gay-marriage vignettes, I applaud corporations that take socially progressive stances. and yes, my Starbucks low-fat, duppio, caramel fuchachinno yesterday was delish!

half the comp process is stressing about the defense. you'll be fine what's the subject? ps, open with a joke

... one of the greatest shows of all time! so much better as an adult. a guilty pleasure on a sunday morning.